F2bnp wrote:

GPUs have to go below 28nm.

If you want a sub-28 nm GPU, just get an integrated Intel GPU 😀
How about one of them nice Broadwells with 14 nm GPU? 😀

Scali wrote:

F2bnp wrote:

GPUs have to go below 28nm.

If you want a sub-28 nm GPU, just get an integrated Intel GPU 😀
How about one of them nice Broadwells with 14 nm GPU? 😀

Hey, don't get smart with me 😜.
Obviously, I want much more performance than that. Problem is, both Nvidia and AMD are stuck at the moment. Maybe by the end of the year we'll get something more impressive, but I personally don't think it's going to happen until next year.

Seeing AMD positions on CPU market I'm tempted to believe that they're secretly making a new APU, serious enough to compete with mid-range CPU/graphics combos and it's the reason they do not put more work into current CPUs. I wish that to be true but in fact it must be so far from reality...

Eagerly awaiting the next die shrink for graphics cards. The GTX960 isn't good enough value for me to upgrade from my GTX660.

As for "high end" retro hardware, sure! When playing old games I want to experience it with the best hardware possible. Often this involves spending a bit more, but not always, often you can user newer hardware and make it compatible through various means, be it slowing down a Pentium to 386 speed or emulating Roland with Munt.

Also, if you go for the value cards of the time, a lot of money can be saved. For example 6600GT, 8800GT are much easier and cheaper to find that 6800GT / Ultra or 8800 GTX. But in general PC hardware is very affordable at the moment. This wasn't always the case. That i7 from a few years ago is still fast as heck and high end hardware holds its value quite well.

The new consoles will change things up, making PC ports a lot more demanding than in the past. 4k resolution will also heat things up with GPUs. Using Dynamic Super Resolution or Virtual Super Resolution you can test 4k on current hardware and 1080 screens to get an idea. Even older games struggle at 4k, it was quite an eye opener and showed me that it will take years for 4k gaming to become mass market.

(...from the episode "I NEED QUALITY")

I don't think we should call it "spoilt". The thing is hardware and software is for common users and enthusiasts. Vogons for enthusiasts, I wouldn't buy and put cheap parts in my car. I want it reliable and functional at the same time. From my experience dealing with quality components give me not only satisfaction but efectivness when it comes to say: hmmm, I made it long time ago and still it works fine! Good example will be IBM Model M keyboard. Oldschool technology starts with quality, that's why most of people will will remind good old days. This is about every product. Time is changing implacably. Of curse IMHO. Godlike!

I'm going to comment here, I'm the odd one out in that I know enough about hardware to do pretty significant (And I do mean +40% to +60% speed typically) overclocks on CPU's and ram in computers that I usually look more at like "What is the cheapest I can buy that is capable of being overclocked fast enough to be as fast as the really expensive bleeding edge thing".

I somewhat apply this to my retro kit to an extent. There's not much overclocking to be gleamed from early stuff, like Socket-A, Slot-A, socket 370, etc. At least not in the +40% range like we can from AMD socket 939 and P4 and newer than that.

For the really older kit pretty much we have to seek and buy that high-end exotic top-end part that. I do, do that for my retro kit though. Finding motherboards (And for that matter top-tier processors) that would of been highly expensive way back when cheap today is fun.

So I'm kind of weird in that I apply the OP's mentioned logic for older kit, but not so much for my modern kit.

^^ ha, ha, that's 100% true and reminds me of: ...The parts used are high-end parts which I couldn't afford back in '90. from this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EipIq8nnwas
So that's why we do retro here 😀
Let me kick a few Shambler's tonight

I won't say I'm spoilt but when I built my current desktop I did go top of the line due to actually having the money to do so. That was almost 7 years ago i think, now I am upgrading to a midline type system. I enjoyed the high side of the tech world once and now I am content with getting what I actually need to.
As far as my vintage stuff goes, I don't think I have any top quality stuff. I just like the older hardware, be it low end or high. It's all in the eye of the beholder I suppose.

RacoonRider wrote:

Seeing AMD positions on CPU market I'm tempted to believe that they're secretly making a new APU, serious enough to compete with mid-range CPU/graphics combos and it's the reason they do not put more work into current CPUs. I wish that to be true but in fact it must be so far from reality...

IIRC that was the original plan when the future still was fusion, but when an actual product finally showed up after many delays it disappointed (though memory bandwidth is the main issue - DDR4 should be priority #1, followed by a similar eDRAM setup used by the Iris Pro 5200 and Xbox One). DDR4 is inevitably going to happen, eDRAM, not 100% sure. Currently they're working on the new Zen architecture, rumored for a 2016 release.

I always remember systems like these with a lot of remorse. As such, I think these stories/events have influenced me far more into researching and always buying what is the best bang for the buck.

I definitely know that feeling. Coil whine on the onboard audio, and a power supply that's quite noisy..
oh well.. I may replace them both... one day.

philscomputerlab wrote:

Eagerly awaiting the next die shrink for graphics cards. The GTX960 isn't good enough value for me to upgrade from my GTX660. […]
Show full quote

Eagerly awaiting the next die shrink for graphics cards. The GTX960 isn't good enough value for me to upgrade from my GTX660.

As for "high end" retro hardware, sure! When playing old games I want to experience it with the best hardware possible. Often this involves spending a bit more, but not always, often you can user newer hardware and make it compatible through various means, be it slowing down a Pentium to 386 speed or emulating Roland with Munt.

Also, if you go for the value cards of the time, a lot of money can be saved. For example 6600GT, 8800GT are much easier and cheaper to find that 6800GT / Ultra or 8800 GTX. But in general PC hardware is very affordable at the moment. This wasn't always the case. That i7 from a few years ago is still fast as heck and high end hardware holds its value quite well.

The new consoles will change things up, making PC ports a lot more demanding than in the past. 4k resolution will also heat things up with GPUs. Using Dynamic Super Resolution or Virtual Super Resolution you can test 4k on current hardware and 1080 screens to get an idea. Even older games struggle at 4k, it was quite an eye opener and showed me that it will take years for 4k gaming to become mass market.

Me too, sort of. I'm looking to buy a new GPU for my top-end kit here in the next 3-5 months and I'm going to be looking at the absolute best option I can get for $400 - $500 with 6GB (or more) v-ram, hopefully. Possibly settle for 4GB cards and get a pair of top-spec GTX 960 TI's (there's 2 new versions coming out soon.. slower 960 TI and faster 960 TI), or maybe a used Gen1 Titan. I don't know yet. I'm upgrading from a pair of overclocked 470's so any of the things from GTX 780 and newer will be good for me. I only game at 1080p, like you said.. 4K is a pipe dream at this point. Maybe I can get a pair of top-spec 960ti's, water cool em and try to clock em up to be a fast as a 980 for less cash. Or find a used 980 for $500 by then, I just don't know at the moment. I'm sitting by the side and watching the GPU news like a hawk lately.

kithylin wrote:

philscomputerlab wrote:

Eagerly awaiting the next die shrink for graphics cards. The GTX960 isn't good enough value for me to upgrade from my GTX660. […]
Show full quote

Eagerly awaiting the next die shrink for graphics cards. The GTX960 isn't good enough value for me to upgrade from my GTX660.

As for "high end" retro hardware, sure! When playing old games I want to experience it with the best hardware possible. Often this involves spending a bit more, but not always, often you can user newer hardware and make it compatible through various means, be it slowing down a Pentium to 386 speed or emulating Roland with Munt.

Also, if you go for the value cards of the time, a lot of money can be saved. For example 6600GT, 8800GT are much easier and cheaper to find that 6800GT / Ultra or 8800 GTX. But in general PC hardware is very affordable at the moment. This wasn't always the case. That i7 from a few years ago is still fast as heck and high end hardware holds its value quite well.

The new consoles will change things up, making PC ports a lot more demanding than in the past. 4k resolution will also heat things up with GPUs. Using Dynamic Super Resolution or Virtual Super Resolution you can test 4k on current hardware and 1080 screens to get an idea. Even older games struggle at 4k, it was quite an eye opener and showed me that it will take years for 4k gaming to become mass market.

Me too, sort of. I'm looking to buy a new GPU for my top-end kit here in the next 3-5 months and I'm going to be looking at the absolute best option I can get for $400 - $500 with 6GB (or more) v-ram, hopefully. Possibly settle for 4GB cards and get a pair of top-spec GTX 960 TI's (there's 2 new versions coming out soon.. slower 960 TI and faster 960 TI), or maybe a used Gen1 Titan. I don't know yet. I'm upgrading from a pair of overclocked 470's so any of the things from GTX 780 and newer will be good for me. I only game at 1080p, like you said.. 4K is a pipe dream at this point. Maybe I can get a pair of top-spec 960ti's, water cool em and try to clock em up to be a fast as a 980 for less cash. Or find a used 980 for $500 by then, I just don't know at the moment. I'm sitting by the side and watching the GPU news like a hawk lately.

What kind of games do you play? You really don't need 6 GB yet

You only need 4gb of vram if you intend to play at 4k resolutions with AA. That being said, more is always better for inflating your e-peen. ^.^

When I decided the Geforce 2 was the card to have on my DirectX 7 machine, I went and got an Ultra, no MX, not even plain GTS. So yes, to some extent. But I never feel fulfilled to have highend just because its highend.
OTOH I've always been a sucker for the underdogs, and my personal history with PC had always been about the price-performance ratio, and since I'm a retrofan for nostalgic reasons I tend to gravitate towards, for instance, era represantives of lowcost contenders, like Duron vs Pentium III and such.
The nice thing is you can do both, you can have the 440BX SLI if that suits your intents, and at the same time some VIA chipset Celeron with some S3 card you want to try. It is all good 😀

I think my 2015 PC status is not related to my retrohobby. Last month I assembled a PC for my son and spent more on the PSU than on the CPU.

When i got new highend graphic card (and no Voodoo 5 isnt for me Highend, from collectors view is common mainstream just like nvidia/most ati), i like most fact that almost all info i put about it on mine site will be unique and probably anywhere you wont find any better info. Its always about discovering something old, unusual and mostly very expensive (i wonder for what price they sold them - site record is $8500 for IBM POWER GXT800P, 38 cards there with price over $1000). Sadly highend stuff except gaming cards is undocumented and when you looking for info, you'll be happy if you find at last low res photo (for example profi NEC TE series, never seen SGI highend stuff like Infinite reality - can you imagine graphic system with 16GB ram in year 2002?, or infinite reality 1 from 1996 with 1GB ram? Also any flight simulator hardware - video review about systems using these profi monster quantum 3Dfx cards would be nice....). Id like to see more tests of this retro stuff like from vintage.org , too bad that all experienced cad/3d model guys still works and noone is doing nostalgic hw blog - guess ill have to wait till they start blogging after they go into retirement.

And theres most of the time also surprise factor, because mostly you discover card, that you didnt know it ever existed, or got thing that you read somewhere it existed, but wont find any closer info about it. Still soo many cards in list to enjoy. And who know how many unknown waiting for me..... 😎

luckybob wrote:

You only need 4gb of vram if you intend to play at 4k resolutions with AA. That being said, more is always better for inflating your e-peen. ^.^

smeezekitty wrote:

What kind of games do you play? You really don't need 6 GB yet

Actually we already have several games that will eat up 4GB full at 1080p, BF4, and WatchDogs. A friend of mine has a titan and BF4 uses 4.1 - 4.4 GB maxed out full ultra settings at 1080p, and WatchDogs is 3.7 GB - 3.8 GB.

And if you get the optional "ultra" texture pack for Shadows of Mordor, that add-on flat out requires 6GB of video ram: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoun … rs-6gb-textures And even if you don't have the pack, the game requires (and will use) all 4 GB of video ram for "high textures", meaning if you have anything less than 4GB, you'll be restricted to just "medium" texture quality.

So there's already a few games that will almost fully utilize 4GB, and future games are only going to use more and more gpu ram. So 4GB is bare minimum we should have if we buy a new card today. 6+ GB is more to "future proof". Personally I'm hoping the mid-range GTX 960 TI, and then the second higher-range 960 TI will both have 6GB or 8GB of video ram. The new Titan-X is confirmed to have 12GB already.

And I'm de-railing this thread and I apologize, let's drop this discussion.. we should make a thread about it elsewhere.

kithylin wrote:

So 4GB is bare minimum we should have if we buy a new card today.

And here I am, still thinking the 1+1Gb HD4870X2 is whooping fast... 🤣

The consoles now have 8 GB of unified memory, so games that use 2 GB of data + 6 GB for graphics quite possible.

I do like the GTX 960, but it's not enough of an upgrade for me. The main reason I want to upgrade is because of Dynamic Super Resolution. It works well with older games and gives you an excellent image. The GTX 660 doesn't have enough performance for this. 4x DSR cuts performance down to 25% 😀

Actually we already have several games that will eat up 4GB full at 1080p, BF4, and WatchDogs. A friend of mine has a titan and BF4 uses 4.1 - 4.4 GB maxed out full ultra settings at 1080p, and WatchDogs is 3.7 GB - 3.8 GB.

I am not denying that it is possible to exceed 4G VRAM. The question is still whether you really need need it.
Do you play BF4 with every setting at max? Do you play heavily modded skyrim?

Also, even if you do hit 4.1-4.2 GB, it will just swap out the lesser used parts to system RAM. Yeah it can slow things down a bit but it shouldn't be too bad.

smeezekitty wrote:

I am not denying that it is possible to exceed 4G VRAM. The question is still whether you really need need it.
Do you play BF4 with every setting at max? Do you play heavily modded skyrim?

Also, even if you do hit 4.1-4.2 GB, it will just swap out the lesser used parts to system RAM. Yeah it can slow things down a bit but it shouldn't be too bad.

I'm certainly not going to pay near $400 for a newer video card just to play games at medium settings. If I'm buying a new GPU it's going to be able to run every DirectX-11 game that exists today, and future games for the next 2-3 years at maximum ultra settings @ 1080p @ 60 FPS or higher.